Valdez v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 85082: February 25, 1991
FACTS:
Spouses Francisco Ante and Manuela Ante were the registered owners of a parcel of
land with TCT No. 141582. Antonio Ante, under a special power of attorney, offered to sell
the lot to Eliseo Viernes, who was occupying the same with the permission of Ante. Viernes,
however, turned down the offer as he did not have money. Antonio Ante then told Viernes
that he will instead sell the property to Pastor Valdez and Virginia Valdez.
Antonio Ante divided the lot into two and sold them both to spouses Pastor Valdez
and Virginia Valdez on June 15, 1980 and on February 12, 1987. The Valdez spouses
demanded from Antonio Ante the delivery of the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 141582.
As Ante failed to deliver the owner’s duplicate certificate of title demanded by the Valdez
spouses, the latter filed their affidavit of adverse claim over the subject lot with the Register
of Deeds of Quezon City on September 6, 1982 as the vendees of the property.
Upon inquiries made, the Valdez spouses learned that Antonio Ante had delivered the
owner’s duplicate certificate of title as a collateral to one Dr. Camilo Garma. On September
13, 1983, upon the prodding of the Valdez spouses, Antonio Ante wrote to Dr. & Mrs. Garma
to request them to entrust the owner’s duplicate copy of the title of the questioned lot to the
Valdez spouses with the assurance that Ante will pay his indebtedness to them. The Garma
spouses turned over to the Valdez spouses the said owner’s duplicate certificate of title after
said Valdez spouses paid for the obligation of Antonio Ante to the Garma spouses.
The Valdez spouses then proceeded to register the two deeds of sale dated June 15,
1980 and February 12, 1981 with the Register of Deeds of Quezon City by presenting the
owner’s duplicate copy of the title. They were, however, informed that the said owner’s
duplicate certificate of title had been declared null and void per order of Judge Tutaan dated
November 10, 1982. They also found out that spouses Ante earlier filed a petition for the
issuance of a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title and to declare null and void the lost
owner’s duplicate certificate of title.
The Valdez spouses also discovered that the Register of Deeds cancelled TCT No.
141582 and in lieu thereof issued TCT No. 293889 in the name of Felicidad Viernes on the
basis of a deed of assignment of the same property dated February 17, 1982 executed by
Antonio Ante in her favor.
Thus, the Valdezes filed their adverse claim over the lot covered by TCT No. 293889
in the name of Felicidad Viernes with the RTC of Quezon City seeking that the order dated
November 10, 1982 of the Court of First Instance of Quezon City authorizing the issuance of
a new owner’s duplicate certificate of title in the name of Francisca Ante be declared null any
void; that the deed of assignment dated February 17, 1982 executed by Antonio Ante in favor
of Felicidad Viernes be cancelled and revoked; that TCT No. 293889 in the name of
Felicidad Viernes in the Register of Deeds of Quezon City be cancelled and declared null and
void; that the Register of Deeds of Quezon City be ordered to reinstate, revalidate and give
full force and effect to the owner’s duplicate copy of TCT No. 141582 in the name of spouses
Francisco and Manuela Ante and declare petitioners as the true and lawful owners of the
property; ordering respondents Viernes and all persons claiming right under them to vacate
the property, and to pay damages and costs to petitioners.
1
On April 9, 1986, the trial court dismissed the complaint as against defendants
Vierneses, and defendants Antes were ordered to pay plaintiff damages.
ISSUE:
Whether or not the decision of the trial court dated April 9, 1986 contain findings of
facts to serve as basis for its conclusion
RULING:
NO. An examination of the decision of the trial court dated April 9, 1986 shows that
there are no findings of facts to serve as basis for its conclusions. Section 14, Article VIII of
the Constitution mandates: “No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing
therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.”
Section 1, Rule 36 of the Rules of Court also provides clearly as follows: “All
judgments determining the merits of cases shall be in writing personally and directly prepared
by the judge, stating clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based, signed
by him, and filed with the clerk of the court.”
In the present case, the three-paged decision of the trial court contained in the first
two pages a statement of the allegations of the pleadings of the parties and enumerates the
witnesses presented and the exhibits marked during the trial. Thereafter, the trial court arrived
at the following conclusion:
After considering the evidence on record, this Court finds that plaintiff have failed to
prove their case as against defendant Felicidad Viernes, but proved their case against
defaulted defendants Antes. The Court finds that there is no sufficient proof of
knowledge or bad faith on the part of defendant Vierneses, and on the basis of
existing jurisprudence, a third person who in good faith purchases and registers a
property cannot be deprived of his title as against plaintiff who had previously
purchased same property but failed to register the same.
This is not what is contemplated under the Constitution and the Rules as a clear and
distinct statement of the facts on the basis of which the decision is rendered. The foregoing
one paragraph statement constitute a mere conclusion of facts and of law arrived at by the
trial court without stating the facts which serve as the basis thereof. Indeed the conclusion of
fact therein that petitioners had not registered the sale to them is traversed by the records
which show on the contrary, petitioners earlier registered the sale to them. The court
statement in the decision that a party has proven his case while the other has not, is not the
findings of facts contemplated by the Constitution and the rules to be clearly and distinctly
stated.
2